Gold9472
11-04-2005, 03:14 PM
CIA inspector general blamed own officers; scapegoats for intel on 9/11, Iraq?
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3510
(Gold9472: YOU GO STEVE!!!)
By Steve Hammons
November 4, 2005
Back in August, the CIA inspector general issued a report that named several high-ranking intelligence officers for alleged “intelligence failures” regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Among those reportedly singled out for criticism were George Tenet, Jim Pavitt and Cofer Black. Other CIA officers were also reportedly named.
Have the CIA and its officers become scapegoats and whipping boys for the 9/11 attacks (and the faulty prewar Iraq intelligence)? Or, are there other hidden factors beneath the surface? Does this CIA report somehow serve as a diversion or smokescreen to obscure deeper facts involved?
Could there have been motive and opportunity for purposely allowing the 9/11 hijackers to complete a terrible “Pearl Harbor” terrorist act on U.S. soil? Who would benefit by allowing a terrorist event like 9/11 to take place? And how might they have benefited?
It is well documented that certain groups believed that “a new Pearl Harbor” would be necessary to motivate the American people and Congress to support the invasion of Iraq. And there was certainly a great motivation on the part of some groups to invade Iraq.
Even after 9/11 though, more had to be done to convince the intelligence community, the military, Congress, the American people and the international community that an invasion of Iraq was needed, and that an invasion of Iraq was directly related to the 9/11 attacks.
Great efforts were made to make this case. So great, in fact, that intelligence was reportedly manipulated, slanted or even completely fabricated.
Many in the CIA stood up to, and stood against these kinds of activities. CIA officers reportedly resisted going along with false intelligence analyses, sometimes under great pressure.
Because of this, groups like the Office of Special Plans were created to go around not only the CIA, but the larger intelligence community, to find intelligence that justified an invasion of Iraq. The Office of Special Plans operated through the office of Douglas Feith, then undersecretary of defense, and under Paul Wolfowitz, then assistant secretary of defense.
Although the CIA inspector general’s report focuses on Central Intelligence and its officers prior to 9/11, other areas of the federal government might be worthy of a second look regarding the 9/11 attacks. For example, two interesting aspects of 9/11 have been brought up in hearings and investigations regarding the following organizations:
- The Justice Department – In previous hearings, the acting head of the FBI stated under oath that prior to 9/11, the U.S. attorney general told him to quit bringing warning reports about terrorist attacks and that the AG did not want to hear them. The AG then denied, under oath, saying this to him.
- The U.S. Air Force – According to reports, during the very time frame of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. air defense forces were conducting drills and exercises that may have diverted resources from the area, and/or confused U.S. air defense forces and air traffic controllers. In addition, the usual command and control authority reportedly may have been changed during that time frame.
These are just two more pieces of the puzzle of 9/11. There seem to be many more, some known, some undisclosed, some whispered about.
To some observers, many CIA officers seem to have demonstrated a measure of accountability, responsibility and ethical behavior prior to 9/11 and the Iraq war.
Civilian appointees in the Defense Department, State Department and elsewhere have sometimes shown less of these qualities. High-ranking Army officers also have escaped responsibility and accountability. And elected officials have sometimes demonstrated great skill in evading legal and moral responsibility and the consequences of their actions.
Undoubtedly, more information will come out about all these events. Like the military intelligence officers of the “Able Danger” team, others will also reveal more information about 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and maybe even more.
The American people need to be ready to face new information with courage. Like many of the CIA officers and others in the intelligence community who have fought for truth and integrity. Like the 9/11 families and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who are fighting, dying and being terribly injured – their loved ones, parents and children grieving with deep wounds in their hearts and souls.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3510
(Gold9472: YOU GO STEVE!!!)
By Steve Hammons
November 4, 2005
Back in August, the CIA inspector general issued a report that named several high-ranking intelligence officers for alleged “intelligence failures” regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Among those reportedly singled out for criticism were George Tenet, Jim Pavitt and Cofer Black. Other CIA officers were also reportedly named.
Have the CIA and its officers become scapegoats and whipping boys for the 9/11 attacks (and the faulty prewar Iraq intelligence)? Or, are there other hidden factors beneath the surface? Does this CIA report somehow serve as a diversion or smokescreen to obscure deeper facts involved?
Could there have been motive and opportunity for purposely allowing the 9/11 hijackers to complete a terrible “Pearl Harbor” terrorist act on U.S. soil? Who would benefit by allowing a terrorist event like 9/11 to take place? And how might they have benefited?
It is well documented that certain groups believed that “a new Pearl Harbor” would be necessary to motivate the American people and Congress to support the invasion of Iraq. And there was certainly a great motivation on the part of some groups to invade Iraq.
Even after 9/11 though, more had to be done to convince the intelligence community, the military, Congress, the American people and the international community that an invasion of Iraq was needed, and that an invasion of Iraq was directly related to the 9/11 attacks.
Great efforts were made to make this case. So great, in fact, that intelligence was reportedly manipulated, slanted or even completely fabricated.
Many in the CIA stood up to, and stood against these kinds of activities. CIA officers reportedly resisted going along with false intelligence analyses, sometimes under great pressure.
Because of this, groups like the Office of Special Plans were created to go around not only the CIA, but the larger intelligence community, to find intelligence that justified an invasion of Iraq. The Office of Special Plans operated through the office of Douglas Feith, then undersecretary of defense, and under Paul Wolfowitz, then assistant secretary of defense.
Although the CIA inspector general’s report focuses on Central Intelligence and its officers prior to 9/11, other areas of the federal government might be worthy of a second look regarding the 9/11 attacks. For example, two interesting aspects of 9/11 have been brought up in hearings and investigations regarding the following organizations:
- The Justice Department – In previous hearings, the acting head of the FBI stated under oath that prior to 9/11, the U.S. attorney general told him to quit bringing warning reports about terrorist attacks and that the AG did not want to hear them. The AG then denied, under oath, saying this to him.
- The U.S. Air Force – According to reports, during the very time frame of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. air defense forces were conducting drills and exercises that may have diverted resources from the area, and/or confused U.S. air defense forces and air traffic controllers. In addition, the usual command and control authority reportedly may have been changed during that time frame.
These are just two more pieces of the puzzle of 9/11. There seem to be many more, some known, some undisclosed, some whispered about.
To some observers, many CIA officers seem to have demonstrated a measure of accountability, responsibility and ethical behavior prior to 9/11 and the Iraq war.
Civilian appointees in the Defense Department, State Department and elsewhere have sometimes shown less of these qualities. High-ranking Army officers also have escaped responsibility and accountability. And elected officials have sometimes demonstrated great skill in evading legal and moral responsibility and the consequences of their actions.
Undoubtedly, more information will come out about all these events. Like the military intelligence officers of the “Able Danger” team, others will also reveal more information about 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and maybe even more.
The American people need to be ready to face new information with courage. Like many of the CIA officers and others in the intelligence community who have fought for truth and integrity. Like the 9/11 families and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who are fighting, dying and being terribly injured – their loved ones, parents and children grieving with deep wounds in their hearts and souls.